Thank you, Don Bauder, for publishing the Petco attendance numbers for the Padres (“City Lights,” December 23). It’s amazing that the attendance is now below what it was at the stadium in 2002. What a great title to your article — “Chargers: Look at Petco Failure.”

The only problem is that the Chargers do not care. A more fitting title would be “Mayor Sanders, City Council, and CCDC: Look at Petco Failure.” There may also be a problem with this title, as I’m not sure if they care.

It looks like the Chargers are on their way to Los Angeles for good reason. While I would prefer them to go to Anaheim so San Diegans could take the train to games, that doesn’t seem to be in the cards.

In any case, we must start planning for their departure. What can we do with an older stadium that is seldom used and costs the City of San Diego millions of dollars each year? We could lay off more police officers and firefighters so we can keep our old, seldom-used stadium and start soliciting other professional football teams.

Another option is to face reality. The City of San Diego is on the verge of bankruptcy and cannot afford to host a professional football team or retain an old, money-sucking stadium.

One suggestion is to prepare Petco Park to host the Padres and San Diego State football. Since soccer games have been played there, football games can be played there. The stadium can then be torn down, and the City can sell most of the property. The areas prone to flooding should remain as a public park. Profits can be used to help reduce the City’s deficit. Once sold to private businesses, this property can be taxed to further help reduce the deficit.

If anyone has a better idea, I would like to hear it.

Ronald HarrisScripps Ranch

Tax That Canyon

In regard to the eight property owners in conflict with the City over the unused building sites at the canyon’s edge (“Conflict at the Canyon’s Edge,” “City Lights,” December 23). Living on a canyon myself with little yard, I would love to have the extra space these people enjoy. I am strapped with two things these folks don’t seem to have: fire-clearing responsibilities and taxes!! I am also on a no-build-area canyon “reserve.” To those eight owners and the City, do the following: redraw the property lines and give them the property; send them aerial photos like the City does me and make sure it’s cleared; and add the extra property to their taxes. The people get the land and the responsibility for it, the City gets extra money from taxes, and it’s fair. If they don’t get it added to their tax base, I want mine reduced!!

Bill Gerrishvia email

Dorian Hargrove responds: The owners of the Mount Terminus properties are responsible for clearing their yards to prevent fires. One of their concerns is that if the City reclaims the property, fire insurance will be more difficult to find and their susceptibility to wildfires will increase. As for the property tax, the City is not allowed to transfer dedicated parkland to individual owners without the approval of two-thirds of the voters. Holding a special election is not feasible.

Stupid, Expensive Hassle

This is exactly why we voted no on Proposition D (“Conflict at the Canyon’s Edge,” “City Lights,” December 23). City leaders stand grim-faced while warning us that we are out of money and critical services will be cut. Yet they fund nearly $100,000 per year to hassle taxpaying property owners about land they’ve been using for 50 years — land that nobody knows about, or even cares about. The obvious correct thing to do would be to drop the issue and defund the program. And there is the money to fund the beach fire pits they keep trying to snatch from us! But I guarantee you that this will not be done. And there’s a chance that the City will lose the lawsuit and have to pay up another $200,000. You can bet that this is only one of a hundred other programs that give us nothing but grief. Keep voting no, people!

Vince Meehanvia email

Kids Gone Wild

I’m really trying to figure out what kind of world this person lives in (Letters to the Editor, December 23), in which someone vocalizing that they don’t like to spend time around unruly, unsupervised children (“Diary of a Diva,” December 16) warrants a smacking or a hope for someone’s demise. Really?

From your story about the nighttime party, it was pretty obvious that even the parents didn’t want to be around the kids either. If children are running around and screaming and directing you to go to the “back,” then they are clearly out of control and the parents have checked out, leaving them to fend for themselves in an effort to enjoy an adult evening as well. Parents are just better at filtering out children’s noise than people who aren’t around children that often. My guess is that the letter-writer didn’t like recognizing their own poor parenting skills in your article.

Sara Harmon via Facebook

Too Dense For Satire

People who do not appreciate irony, satire, parody, and humor are…well, illiterate Philistines (Letters to the Editor, December 23). I appreciate “Diary of a Diva” and read it weekly.

I disagree with just about every one of the nasty things this guy says (I bet he’s an open-carry advocate). But as the happy father of little rug rats, after an extended, mostly successful bachelorhood when I used to have “those” thoughts about parents of “unruly” children, I have gained a lot of empathy for those parents. It ain’t as easy as it looks, and going out is sometimes a Rip van Winkle experience.